Collaboration in the Mixed-Income Redevelopment of Housing and Urban Development Neighborhoods

Purpose: Mixed-income redevelopment (MIR) policy, while necessary because of housing problems and the distress experienced by residents has not always benefited low-income residents. Research on replacing traditional public housing with mixed-income communities is promising on the neighborhood level, but inconclusive regarding the empowering effects on former residents (Polikoff, in Cisneros & Engdahl, 2009). Research can determine the outcomes of three questions regarding: 1) differences in current housing problems in traditional versus redeveloped public housing, 2) descriptions of housing problems by participants in a Resident Advisory Committee (RAC) collaboration and 3) whether social cohesion, organizational collective efficacy and having a transition and/or relocation planning predict resident readiness for MIR.

Methods: The mixed methods study used concurrent triangulation design with separate qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys (Plano, Clark & Creswell, 2008). Twenty-five professional and residents participants in the RAC process participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews, which resulted in a 45% response rate. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the Constant Comparative Method within the Atlas Ti software. Three hundred eighty-seven residents of the same neighborhoods with moderate (38%) and high poverty (72%) levels completed a survey, which resulted in a 37% response rate. Residents participating in the survey were predominantly female (73%), Hispanic (44%) or African American (22%), had incomes of less than $12,500 (76%). Participants lived in traditional public housing (60%), redeveloped public housing (19%), neighboring houses (11%), and low-income Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidized apartments (10%). The survey used established social cohesion and organizational collective efficacy scales, as well as two new scales measuring transition and/or relocation planning and readiness for MIR (Obst et al, 2002; Perkins & Long, 2002; Ohmer, 2006; Foster-Fishman et al, 2007). Scale reliability and validity were determined by running alpha scores, Exploratory Factor Analysis, and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Housing problems were compared by location, using ANOVA. Multiple imputation of missing data was conducted prior to running a multiple regression predicting resident readiness for MIR.

Results: The traditional public housing residents identified several housing problems that are significantly different (p<.05) from the redeveloped public housing including: 1) peeling or broken plaster, 2) plumbing needs repairs, 3) cockroaches, 4) cold during the winter, 5) hot during the summer, 6) screen doors need repairs, and 7) walls in the bathroom need repairs. Two unique housing problems were identified including gas leaks in traditional public housing and problems with mice in low-income HUD subsidized apartments, which were elaborated on in the in-depth interviews. Based on multiple regression analysis resident perception of social cohesion, organizational collective efficacy and having a transition and/or relocation plan have a positive relationship and explain 42% of the variance in readiness for MIR (p<.01).

Implications: Future MIR policy continues to be necessary, but needs to focus on maintaining social cohesion and empowering neighborhood organizations to collaborate with systems to solve neighborhood problems like transition and/or relocation planning. The result of the emphasis on including residents in planning and implementation of MIR may ensure residents are more prepared to benefit from these neighborhood changes.